The AP on Project Homestead via The Charleston Post and Courier (registration required) (thanks Valerie). 

"GREENSBORO--The head of a nonprofit home builder carried a lot of political clout that kept elected officials from thoroughly reviewing how his group spent millions in government money, two city council members said.

Other council members deny the allegations of Tom Phillips and Sandy Carmany.

"That's a crock," Councilwoman Yvonne Johnson said. "I would never sell my soul. I never had an inkling this kind of foolishness was going on." ....

.... Others also complained about King's apparent influence. Members of the Community Resource Board, an advisory board that reviews city donations to nonprofits, suggested at a council meeting in December 2000 that the council's Homestead decisions appeared to be politically inspired.

Council members were afraid of King, board member Valerie Rechtin said."

A lot of folks mentioned in the article declined comment or could not be reached.

(Editing note: This Stan Swafford story originally ran in the N&R on Jan 25, thanks Lex)

2:29:36 PM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

"The deterioration is so widespread that adequate repairs may be impractical"

I went down to the City's Engineering office and obtained a copy of the structural report for War Memorial Stadium that was submitted to the City on June 3rd, 2003.  Undertaken by Sutton-Kennerly & Associates, Inc. the report bears little resemblance to the $10,000 estimate that the City's Engineering department reported to City Council last week.

Sutton-Kennerly has promised to send me a PDF file of the full report tomorrow but some excerpts are:

"... it does not appear that the type of repairs and maintenance, as well as the standard of care taken for these repairs, have been effective in maintaining this structure to acceptable standards.  Consequently, the stadium will require major structural repairs to extend its effective service life"

"... We believe that the present strength of the stadium is reduced below the original design and the factor of safety of the structure in its present condition may be significantly below building code requirements"

"...Although not a structural concern, falling debris from delaminated concrete presents a serious hazard to users of the stadium."

"... It appears that War Memorial Stadium may not have been adequately maintained during the life of the facility... Corrosion of reinforcing steel is widespread."

"... The deterioration of the stadium is widespread.  It is doubrful that any cost effective repair project will add significant service life to the structure"

"... At this time, a major structural repaird is required to reduce the risk of creating an unsafe condition."

I called Bryan Wood with Sutton-Kennerly and spoke with him about the report.  I told him about Aycock's estimate of $3,060,000 for the stadium footprint renovation.  Wood confirmed that our figure based on $90.00 for each of the 34,000 sq ft is about right.

My main question about the report is why it was not made public before the stadium referendum back in October.  The voters should have been informed that it will take millions of dollars to save (yes I said save) War Memorial regardless of who is to be playing there in the future.

9:03:34 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

The editorial staff at the N&R is incredulous about the Greensboro Zoning Commission's 7-2 approval of a new shopping center at the intersection of Battleground Ave. and Horsepen Creek Road... and they should be.  That area needs another shopping center as much as East Greensboro needs another dilapidated house.

The Zoning Commission ignored the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan which clearly calls for the area to be residential. Instead they reverted to the haphazard, sprawl producing, developer driven, back-room deal making practices that helped win Greensboro the distinction of being tops in the nation in "urban sprawl". 

The Commission chose not just to ignore the Plan but today's editorial noted that at least one member exhibited real contempt for the document....   "(I)'m looking at this as a land-use issue, just like the good old days,'' said member Janet Wright. "Does this zoning make sense on this piece of property?''

Ms. Wright is wrong and the Commission should be reprimanded by the City Council.  Re-zoning that property is a clear sign that the majority of the Zoning Commission thinks that the hundreds of citizens who helped draft the Comp Plan... and the City Council that adopted the Plan... are just an annoyance.

7:52:29 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks